There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2,5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the desobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2,17), that Christ fulfill the Law and was exalted above all creation. Medidating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a catholic opinion, and it's, indeed, catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, have the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including in the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfill the Law firstly in its virtue and holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), i have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be to simple (I did not complete my cathechesis yet, if this serves of excuse), but what I'm really searching is to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and go deeply in this mystery. God bless.

I want to be a scientist, but I don’t know if the Bible says anything against women being scientists. It has said stuff like women should "be quiet" and "submit" (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11). I know that there are many interpretations of that. I want to know if a woman can, in good conscience, pursue a career in science.

Astrology is often categorized as an occult practice in Christian theology, especially in Protestant and evangelical circles. I’m trying to understand the theological basis for this. Why is astrology — the practice of interpreting celestial bodies for guidance or insight — considered spiritually dangerous or forbidden? Is it primarily because it involves divination or seeking knowledge apart from God? I'm also curious how this view is reconciled with the story of the Magi in Matthew 2:1–12, who followed a star to find the newborn Jesus. The Magi are often described as astrologers or wise men from the East who interpreted celestial signs. If astrology is inherently occult, why would God use something resembling it (a star as a sign) to guide them? Are there biblical or doctrinal distinctions made between the Magi's actions and the kind of astrology that is condemned in Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 47, Deuteronomy 18)? I’m looking for a response grounded in Christian theology, not just personal opinions.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Some Christians, particularly in the United States, believe that America has a divine obligation to support or defend the modern state of Israel. This belief is often linked to the promise in **Genesis 12:3**, where God says to Abraham, *“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”* Is this verse the primary theological basis for that belief?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Christian language often describes sin as a burden carried in the heart, and salvation as bringing peace or relief. Is there a recognized theological or scriptural basis for linking the guilt of sin with an internal “weight,” and the experience of salvation with a kind of emotional or spiritual lightness? How have Christian traditions interpreted this metaphor or experience?

According to Catholicism, can unaided reason know that every religion except Christianity is false? For example, if someone claimed that they are 95% sure Christianity is true and 5% sure some other religion is true (and let's say for the sake of argument this person is perfectly informed about both religions), would Catholicism tell them this is a reasonable belief to hold and the right way to think about things, or would they say no, there is enough information out there that if you actually know about that religion you would know with complete certainty that it is false?

With the rise of brain-computer interface technologies like Elon Musk’s Neuralink , which aim to enhance cognitive functions such as memory, learning speed, and attention, how do Christian theologians and denominations view the use of such implants purely for enhancement rather than healing or therapeutic purposes? Would using such technologies be seen as overstepping the boundaries of God’s design for the human mind, or could they be interpreted as a legitimate form of human innovation and stewardship over creation? Are there any official statements, theological writings, or denominational positions—particularly from Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant perspectives—that address this issue, either directly or through applicable principles?

### Background Latter Day Saints believe that "plain and precious truths" were lost from the Bible : > Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that **there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book**, which is the book of the Lamb of God. - (**1 Nephi 13:28**) LDS/Non-LDS Christian disputations often center on apparent discrepancies between the Christian Bible vs Mormon scriptures. ### Question If LDS believe important information that corroborates the Book of Mormon and Mormon beliefs were lost from the Christian Bible, are LDS and non-LDS Christian disputes always talking past one another? Can scriptural arguments ever be employed against a belief system like Latter Day Saint theology which always has the "escape hatch" of 1 Nephi 13:28?

Mormons appear to believe that Jesus is the literal, physical offspring of their "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother". What do they believe about how Jesus was born to a human mother? Do they believe that Jesus's human mother, Mary is distinct from "Heavenly Mother"? How did Mary come to be pregnant in Mormon theology?

Studying comparative Christianity, I've found many differing theological (and christological) positions where adherents of the religion disagree on the nature of God and Christ within Scripture. I have found nine positions thus far, have I missed any on the list? ----- 1. Universalist Unitarian 2. Angelomorphic Unitarian 3. Modalist Unitarian 4. Adoptionist Unitarian 5. Modalist Binitarian 6. Bitheist Binitarian 7. Modalist Trinitarian 8. Tritheist Trinitarian 9. Modalist Quadrinitarian 10. Quadtheist Quadrinitarian

Human emotions and reasoning doubt every proof that is given under Christian theology. Why do not they have definite prove that eliminates all sources of doubts? Like in mathematics * "1 + 1 = 2" * "All right angles are equal to each other" * "The sum of two sides in a triangle is greater than the third side." All these statements above can be definitely proved and leave no room for doubt (another possible condition in which statement could be false is impossible). Now, If I choose to disbelieve the biblical message then I will have to face eternal punishment (if it is true). I cannot confirm it or deny it through any means present to me for 100 percent surety. ***Why did not God gave a definite proof that eliminates all sources of doubts to the biblical message, so that other conditions are not even possible in reality? Has any Christian theologist commented on this?*** Please do not call any proof as definite in the answer as if one really looks at the current status of proofs, they are debatable. Example: Every creation has a creator. Problem: We do not know universe was created or it existed for infinite time with no beginning. also do not use this verse as an answer > “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand > later.” > > John 13:7

I'm just curious how there can be more than one truth at the same time? God came to establish a church. Not any church. The church of the first thousand years is the Eastern Orthodox church.

Several years ago I heard in a sermon (from John MacArthur I think) that, corresponding to Daniel 12:3 where it says those who have insight will shine like stars, that our ultimate reward in heaven will be the capacity to radiate the glory of God in all eternity. It was something like that. I have heard the teaching two other times, perhaps from preachers who got it from MacArthur or his source. This idea has captivated me for quite a few years. Can any of you help me find more information on this topic and possibly help in understanding whether this is a valid idea? Thank you.

A popular (Eastern Orthodox) view of afterlife proclaims that God's presence is akin to torture for an unbeliever (Hell) and akin to bliss for a believer (Heaven). It claims that Heaven and Hell are different responses to presence of God, rather than 2 different places. This brings me to my question. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective can unbelievers change their attitude towards God in the afterlife, and thus turn their Hell into Heaven?

There are infinitely many combinations of possible polytheisms (2 gods, 3 gods, 4 gods, etc). There are also polytheisms where gods perform different and often complementary functions. What makes Christian theism more likely to be true than all of the polytheistic alternatives? What specific characteristics show its superiority?